Beeecaaauuuse... he was only following orders?

Posted by: MattF at January 15, 2007 06:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

I don't know about you, but I've had it up to here w/ this banana republic ludicrousness . . .

Some of us never thought one bit of it was tolerable.

Others got fed up a long time ago. Long enough to, for example, vote for Kerry.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 15, 2007 07:55 PM | Permalink to this comment

What have we learned from the Bush administration?

Appointees with officially-used nicknames like "Cully" are never good news.

Posted by: Jon H at January 15, 2007 08:05 PM | Permalink to this comment

Who gave this man a law degree anyway? That's what I'm wondering.

Posted by: The Truffle at January 15, 2007 08:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

Oh, there's LOTS more Banana Republicanism coming in the very near future, Greg. Read http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7789 and http://www.slate.com/id/2157493/ today.

And also be sure to follow the link from Lithwick's article to Jane Mayer's biography of David Addington in the New Yorker. He and Cheney are absolutely convinced (like Hobbes, Bismarck and Pinochet before them) that democracy itself is destructively obsolete in today's "dangerous world" -- they first got together on this in the mid-1970s, and, according to Mayer, Addington has believed it since he was a teenager -- and they intend to use this window of opportunity to dismantle it. And they are the ones telling Bush what to do.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 15, 2007 08:53 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yeah, I would think that this incident tells us something about Gates, and I don't like what I'm hearing.

Posted by: Anderson at January 15, 2007 09:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

He and Cheney are absolutely convinced (like Hobbes, Bismarck and Pinochet before them) that democracy itself is destructively obsolete in today's "dangerous world" -- they first got together on this in the mid-1970s...

In the mid-1970s?

Funny, there was no "Islamofascist conspiracy" back then. Just the Cold War - against a superpower about to crumble before our very eyes.

So, Cheney comes to power bringing a mindset still stuck on Fighting the Evil Empire - which doesn't exist anymore.

Not much of a reason, on the face of it, to consider the world so "dangerous" that democracy is "destructively obsolete," eh?

Then 20 terrorists - none of whom are Iraqi - get really, amazingly, lucky by pulling off the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever.

Their luck is all the more amazing when you consider that our anti-terrorist agencies were running around "with their hair on fire," tracking a lot of chatter during the Summer of Threat, trying desperately to get Bush, or Cheney, or Rice to take them seriously. But Bush was busy cutting funds for counter-terrorist programs; Rice was busy figuring out who got to sit where during meetings; and Cheney... Cheney was off holding secret meetings with oil company executives, talking about what and planning what, we still don't know to this day. And all three were very, very busy ignoring the August 8 memo.

Gosh, those 19 terrorists sure had a long string of sheer, blind, no-one-could-have-predicted-this luck, didn't they?:

In one day, Cheney has a new enemy to scare us with; a new war to get us embroiled in; and a whole new opportunity to get rid of that destructively obsolete, dangerous concept known as "democracy" in America.

I guess you could say Cheney's a very, very lucky guy, too. Got what he wanted, just when he wanted it.

Isn't that amaaazing.

Posted by: CaseyL at January 15, 2007 10:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

Apparently some people agree. Although they should have asked for his resignation.

Posted by: AnneJ at January 15, 2007 11:02 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yes- amazing - seventy-six (at last count) Deans of Law Schools signing on to publicly repudiate Mr. Stimson's remarks.
However, I notice the absence of a sig from the Dean of George Mason University's Law School: which institution, Truffle, I believe is Charles Stimson's alma mater.

How long do we think it will take for some rightwing blogger to start a campaign against the Deans who signed onto said petition? Maybe they should start a movement to pressure alumni organizations into defunding terrorist-lovers like those dastardly Law School Deans who have obviously, and blatantly sold out our nation's security by insisting that American Constutional principles might actually mean something, if the Decider-in-Chief decides otherwise?

Posted by: Jay C at January 16, 2007 12:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

Yes- amazing - seventy-six (at last count) Deans of Law Schools signing on to publicly repudiate Mr. Stimson's remarks.

Just the usual leftist academic group-think.

Stimson is entirely correct: US corporations should not be expected to subsidize leftist political activism.

Posted by: anonymoose at January 16, 2007 02:11 AM | Permalink to this comment

Stimson is entirely correct: US corporations should not be expected to subsidize leftist political activism.

Does that mean Scooter Libby will fire his lead defense firm Paul Weiss? How dare he subsidize the liberal agenda!

Posted by: Tim at January 16, 2007 02:46 AM | Permalink to this comment

Stimson, eh?

Can someone explain to me just what Charles Stimson does at the Pentagon? I know what his title is, and I know what it sounds like he does. I know that he's in his early 40s; that he spent a few years as a Navy JAG about a decade ago; and that before going to work at the Pentagon early last year prosecuted some child abuse and domestic violence cases in Maryland. I gather he has arranged and hosted some VIP tours of the Guantanamo facility. But otherwise I'd never heard of him before about two days ago.

Now, I am deeply outraged about the recent comments made on the radio by this person, and I really mean that. Just because I've never heard of someone doesn't mean he has a license to say outrageous things. But -- and this is just a wild guess here -- the thought has crossed my mind that a lot of the people denouncing Stimson's remarks over the last couple of days had never heard of him either, nor had they any better idea what his actual responsibilities are than I do. Not that this should matter. It would be sheer speculation on my part to say that DoD has at least one Deputy Assistant Secretary with no evident policymaking responsibilities, who needed to have a legal background so he could answer VIPs' questions as he escorted them around Guantanamo. And I'm not saying that. I'm not even thinking that, and I'm not saying what I'm thinking. I'm not even thinking what I'm thinking.

Posted by: Zathras at January 16, 2007 05:08 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Remember what Bin Laden's strategy is: He doesn't think he can beat us in a stand up fight, he thinks he can force us to quit. He believes that after Lebanon in '83 and Somalia in '93, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war."

He also pointed out that this has only recently metastasized into a sectarian conflict because of the action of al Qaeda influenced Sunni terrorists, telling ..... "We went up until the spring of '06, and the Shia sat back and did not respond to the attacks, they sat there and took it. But after they got hit at the golden dome in Samarra, that precipitated the sectarian violence we're seeing now. . . . no war ever goes smoothly all the way, sometimes you have to adjust."

Who's right, bin Laden or Cheney?

Posted by: neill at January 16, 2007 05:58 AM | Permalink to this comment

...they first got together on this in the mid-1970s, and, according to Mayer, Addington has believed it since he was a teenager...

I'm guessing that a lifelong devotion to ideas formed in adolescence is a pretty common trait among the wannabe Caesars of the Cheney administration.

Posted by: sglover at January 16, 2007 06:36 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Remember what Bin Laden's strategy is: He doesn't think he can beat us in a stand up fight, he thinks he can force us to quit. He believes that after Lebanon in '83 and Somalia in '93, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war."

Please explain to us all what vital strategic interests we had in either situation.

Try to grasp something, neill. I believe that if you concentrate hard, even you can understand this:

It's not real good strategy to base all your actions on what your opponent thinks, or -- worse -- what you think he thinks. Instead, you base your strategy on your own interests. This way, you can use (always finite) resources effectively. More important, you preserve the most vital capacity of all, independent action. Your addled approach -- we must be ready to engage EVERYWHERE, and once engaged ANYWHERE, we can never ever quit until we've attained "victory" -- guarantees the initiative to the dark forces that you're so afraid of.

Jesus, I'd love to play you in chess. I'll bet I'd have you wrapped around my finger by sacrificing a pawn.

Posted by: sglover at January 16, 2007 06:48 AM | Permalink to this comment

Joyce Carey had it almost perfectly: Cully Stimson, hero of "The Horse's Ass".

Posted by: Mike Schilling at January 16, 2007 07:26 AM | Permalink to this comment

I'd love to know how many of Bush's and Cheney's remaining supporters would have been opposed to the evacuation of the troops at Dunkirk, on the grounds that this represented a totally unacceptable defeat for the British cause.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 16, 2007 07:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

Now, now, let's leave the in-apt WW2 analogies to the Bush-tards.

Posted by: Tom S at January 16, 2007 02:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

Neil:

"Remember what Bin Laden's strategy is: He doesn't think he can beat us in a stand up fight, he thinks he can force us to quit. He believes that after Lebanon in '83 and Somalia in '93, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war."

He also pointed out that this has only recently metastasized into a sectarian conflict because of the action of al Qaeda influenced Sunni terrorists, telling ..... "We went up until the spring of '06, and the Shia sat back and did not respond to the attacks, they sat there and took it. But after they got hit at the golden dome in Samarra, that precipitated the sectarian violence we're seeing now. . . . no war ever goes smoothly all the way, sometimes you have to adjust."

Who's right, bin Laden or Cheney?

...Fucktardity.

Posted by: tregen at January 16, 2007 03:25 PM | Permalink to this comment

Now, now, let's leave the in-apt WW2 analogies to the Bush-tards.

If the 'surge' turns out to include a crack-down on the Sadrists, they could retaliate with a guerilla campaign against U.S. supply lines in the south. Dunkirk might then be a very apt analogy, except that they didn't have helicopters then.

Another way it could happen would be an American attack on Iran, which might arouse both major Shi'ite factions.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 16, 2007 05:12 PM | Permalink to this comment

More like the retreat from "Frozen" Chosin, minus the ice and snow.

Posted by: Tom S at January 16, 2007 05:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

Would Bush give our guys permission to retreat?

If not it could turn out more like Stalingrad....

Posted by: J Thomas at January 16, 2007 05:41 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg, Greg, Greg, have you learned NOTHING yet? Pop the contact lenses too as you've removed the shades.

YOU ain't seen nothing yet. 7 US Attorneys booted within 5 months plus WH admits more to come? And almost ALL involved in supervising criminal prosecutions of REPUBLICANS?

And the ONLY one they can't move against right now is Fitzpatrick. But when the Libby trial wraps up...

Ever hear about Wilson's Att Genl & the Big Red Scare? Get ready for the Big Muslim Scare, and more. Get ready the Waving the Bloody Flag in 2008 to elect ANY Republican.

Why? Well, Losing the Senate & the House is one thing. Losing control of the WH means losing control of the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, which means for JAIL for a lot & lot of Bush/Cheneys. ALL the real secrets are buried in Justice under Al the Gonzo.

A Demo Congress can supoena all it wants--its JUSTICE that prosecutes.

Cheney/Addington moves for TOTAL CONTROL.

Posted by: Robert M. at January 16, 2007 08:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

Neil while you spout the Bush bull about the Shia being forced to defend themselves after the Feb '06 destruction of the shrine in Samarra you might want to check the record. While it certainly marked the escalation of the civil war the Samarra bombing was not the start of sectarian hostilies. Shiite death squads had been moving through Iraq for over a year, assassinating former members of Husseins regime mostly Sunni muslims. These murders were rarely if ever investigated by the recently elected Shiite leaders.

In the article by Mark Siebel in The McClatchy Newspapers he describes "Administration Leaving Out Important Details in Iraq"
He describes how Bush and company are lying again to us. "U.S. diplomats, reporters and military and intelligence officers began reporting that Shiite death squads were targeting Sunni clerics and former officials of Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime at least 15 months before the Samarra bombing."

"The concerns about Shiite militias grew after the Jan. 30, 2005, elections that brought the Shiite-led government of then-Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to power. Journalists in Iraq, the CIA station, the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. military all reported throughout 2005 that evidence was mounting that Jaafari's government was incorporating Shiite militias and death squads into the Iraqi army and police."

The US military and Bush continued to ignore the killings and "enabled the Shiite Muslim militias to use Interior Ministry vehicles and equipment- much of it bought with American money - to carry out revenge attacks against the minority Sunni Muslims".

So here we are again with untrue, oversimplified and incomplete stories being told to save Bush's ego and in the meantime more Americans and Iraqis die.

Posted by: Lynn Applegate at January 16, 2007 10:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

This is probably only the beginning of Joe McCarthy type smears by Bush/Cheney Inc. They are desparate men who are in a tight corner and facing serious investigations into their six years of misrule. Bush Administration is reacting the way such people do with whatever smear they can think of to use against their opponents in a desparate effort to starve off political defeat.
Remember there is nothing more dangerous then a wounded & cornered Tiger. Better be alert for more smears at any time. Wonder if this Stimson punk is related to related to the legendary statesman, Henry Stimson? Would be especially ironic if he was since Stimson's last article in the New York Times in May 1950 was a defense of President Truman & Sec. of State Dean Acheson against the smears of Joe McCarthy & his fellow demagaues.

Posted by: David All at January 16, 2007 10:54 PM | Permalink to this comment